memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Constitution class/archive
Footnotes Style Kobi, I have honestly no idea why you changed that. It looks very disorganized now. I think it looked more clear in the previous version. Ottens 16:20, 3 Jul 2004 (CEST) : I'm sorry, but the ** looks better if you ask me, because the single : does not give the same indent as the *; of course I would be happy if there were no discs in front of the "evidence paragraphs", something which could be accomplished with to force the line break (other than that, you have written an impressive article here) -- Kobi 17:52, 3 Jul 2004 (CEST) :Now it looks like the paragraphs below "Enterprise class" are three different point. They are not. They are simply three different paragraphs. Thanks ;) Ottens 18:21, 3 Jul 2004 (CEST) Thumbnailed Images & Sidebars I tried to use normal thumbnails for the images, but with quite a lot of images, the page looks very disorganized this way. Therefore, I decided to put them all in two large sidebars... Ottens 15:40, 3 Jul 2004 (CEST) :Shouldn't the sidebar about "Original Configuration" go with the text about the "Original Configuration", just like the sidebar about the "Refit Configuration" is next to the text about the "Refit Configuration"? Now the sidebar about the "Original Configuration" is next to the intro text, which is about the Constitution class in whole. Ottens 20:56, 3 Jul 2004 (CEST) :*cough* Captainmike? ;) Ottens 17:42, 5 Jul 2004 (CEST) ::Well, I do see your point about that, however the bulk of the article creates a long TOC at the top, so placing the table below that creates a situation where there is no information on the page when loaded. Perhaps the Constitution class refit deserves its own article, since it is making this one unreadable? :: I'll rearrange a little, in case you don't like that option -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 17:46, 5 Jul 2004 (CEST) ::I was thinking about giving the Refit its own page, but I think that is very unpractical. People would look for info about the Constitution class, and it's probably easier to have both the Original and the Refit on the same page... and it's easier linking to it then for writers. Ottens 17:50, 5 Jul 2004 (CEST) ::Creating individual pages for both would, however, solve the problem. Plus the current page is quite long, eh. Ottens 17:52, 5 Jul 2004 (CEST) ::: Actually, I see another problem that has been nagging me for a while. How come the Constitution class article is purely about the internal arrangement of the USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) but there is no information about the arrangement in THAT article? since starships classes differ from ship to ship, isn't this information misplaced (similar to all the misplaced information in the Excelsior class article -- notes about the USS Excelsior's internal arrangement belonged in USS Excelsior, not in the Excelsior class article, and i think that is what's happening here. The Enterprise is only one ship OF the Constitution class, so its arrangement may not mean much to other vessels in that series -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 17:53, 5 Jul 2004 (CEST) ::::I was under the impression the internal arrangement of the Enterprise was standard among Constitution class starships. Just like the Interior information of the Enterprise-D is on the Galaxy class page, not on the Enterprise-D page. Of course the Enterprise is the only Constitution class vessel we've seen from the inside, but that counts as well for the Excelsior, the Enterprise-D, Voyager... For practically every starship. And I doubt the interior of starships of the same class would be radically different. Of course, there might be slight differences, but overall, I think it's quite the same... Ottens 17:58, 5 Jul 2004 (CEST) ::::HOWEVER, it would solve all our problems! The interior info about the original Enterprise would go there, and the interior about the refitted on the Enterprise-A page. The article would be considerably smaller, and we could have just ONE Constitution class article. Ottens 18:04, 5 Jul 2004 (CEST) ::This is also in the interests of brevity, and reducing our IMAGE HEAVY articles. If a reader wished a detailed description of a transporter room, they could click on the link to a separate article... keep Constitution class about the Constitution, and keep a bridge article, transporter room article.. etc.. use the Constitution and Enterprise articles to show how their bridges are different from the others. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 18:11, 5 Jul 2004 (CEST) ::For a detailed description about a transporter room, they should go the the Transporter page, but for a description about the Constitution class USS Enterprise Transporter Room, they should go to the USS Enterprise page. ;) Anyway, I'll have things rearranged... Ottens 18:13, 5 Jul 2004 (CEST) USS Republic Is the USS Republic on the Uncertain Ships list meant to be the ship mentioned in Court Martial? If so then registry is given in dialogue and is NCC-1371. It also appears on the mission assignment graphic from ST VI, though as that's not really visible the canonicity is debatable. Is there a Constitution Class Merrimack? In the list of Federation Starships page: http://www.memory-alpha.org/en/index.php/List_of_Federation_starships There is a Merrimack listed as a Constitution class ship. It was apparently mentioned in ST:TMP. I doubt it was shown, so unless someone can confirm that it was Constitution class (or not) it should be listed on the Constitution class page as "uncertain". The website is a beautiful resource! I don't know how (or honestly why :-) you devote the time it must take, but I appreciated finding it! -- Mickey Rowe (rowe@psych.ucsb.edu) Final Starship List... Possibly I was reading "The Making of Star Trek" By Stephen E. Whitfield and Gene Roddenberry, and it lists the following Starship names as the final list of Constitution class vessels for the series: Enterprise, Exeter, Excalibur, Lexington, Yorktown, Potemkin, Republic, Hood, Constitution, Kongo, Constellation, Farragut, Valient, and Intrepid. Maybe this will help with what ships are and are not "real". User:Time Travler 3:01Am CST. 2-15-05 How can the list be erroneous since Roddenberry himself created it. EAnchor 10:42 PM 08 July, 2004. :Well, considering that it already erroneously lists Valiant and Republic, I'd say its a bad start. --Captain Mike K. Bartel These ships are confirmed: *Constitution - NCC-1700. Registry seen on-screen possibly in the original series, and definitely in Franz Joseph drawings on-screen in the movies. The name is confirmed by the dialogue naming the class. *Enterprise NCC-1701 *Constellation NCC-1017. Seen on-screen in "Doomsday Machine" *Exeter. Seen as a constitution in "Omega Glory" registry NCC-1672 is only from Jein and Okuda, but is widely accepted *Excalibur. Seen in "Ultimate Computer" Registry NCC-1664 by Jein *Lexington. Seen in "Ultimate Computer" Registry by Jein, though *Potemkin. Seen in "Ultimate Computer" Registry by Jein *Hood. Seen in "Ultimate Computer" Registry by Jein *Defiant - seen in "Tholian Web" NCC-1764 Registry by Jein, though Uncertain *Intrepid - never seen, but said to have a crew of 430. NCC-1631 registry by Jein *Farragut - never seen, no evidence it was a constitution. registry from Jein only. *Yorktown - never seen, no evidence it was a constitution. NCC-1717 registry from Jein & Okuda only. *Kongo - never seen, never mentioned. listed only is Star Trek VI background art. *Eagle NCC-956 - never seen, never mentioned. listed only is Star Trek VI background art. **Merrimack - a Constitution from the Technical Manual, mentioned in TMP comm chatter. its class wasnt mentioned in the movie, but in the manual -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 17:26, 10 Jul 2004 (CEST) Erroneous *Valiant - theres no way Valiant could have been a Constitution 50 years prior to TOS. its possible there was another Constitution-class Valiant based on the list, but non-canon speculation is not appropriate *Republic - no one ever said it was a constitution, who knows where this reference came from (probably that non-canon book you cited). since the ship had "old style" pile circuits and suh, and was a training ship, I'd want to believe it was older. its possible there was another Constitution-class Republic(the DS9 training ship?) , after the NCC-1371 was decommissioned based on the list, but non-canon speculation is not appropriate :: "that non canon book" you speak of was written by Gene Roddenberry himself during the original production run of the Original Series and published towards the end of the third season, and is mostly reprints of the original writers guide and production materials (as well as internal memos). As something written at the time, by Roddenberry himself, it's a little cavalier to dismiss it as "non-canon", it's at least as canon as the semi-canon Technical Manuals and Chronology/Encyclopedia since it was made by the producers of a series, during that series, as a reference to that series --12.210.252.89 22:12, 8 May 2005 (UTC) There are a few more uncertainties from un-aired dialogue, possibly a couple from "Amok Time" script, and a few more uncertainties from the Star Trek VI art (but I'm hesitant to include the ST:6 ones that aren't listed in the Making of Star Trek lists, its more than likely they are other types, and more believably so also) --Captain Mike K. Bartel 12:00, 9 Jul 2004 (CEST) : The Essex and Eagle are from an early draft for "Journey to Babel", the Excalibur and Endeavour are from "Amok Time", first draft; Excalibur was then used in "Ultimate Computer" -- Kobi 12:07, 9 Jul 2004 (CEST) Warp Factor Maximum Warp on the refit shows "warp 12". This is impossible because the maximum speed attainable is almost warp 10. Warp 10 cannot be reached as it is referred to moving at an infinite speed. This is accepted canon, and also reinforced in more than one novel. See Warp Factor Chart. :That speed is in the old-style Cochrane scale, which was used on TOS. It had to have been, considering the number of times Evil Alien Entities caused the ship to reach Warp 15. --Steve 16:34, 9 Jul 2004 (CEST) ::The maximum speed reached by the Enterprise was Warp 14 in "Is There In Truth No Beauty" (and was dragged at warp 20 by Karla's ship ((which went warp 36 itself)) in "The Counter Clock Incident.") However, no cruising or maximum speeds were canonically established for the E-refit, so i removed the speed reference from its chart --Captain Mike K. Bartel 17:26, 10 Jul 2004 (CEST) ::BTW, the speeds listed (if the old scale is truly wf cubed = multiples of c): *warp 14 = 2744 times the speed of light *warp 20 = 8000 times the speed of light *warp 36 = 46,656 times light ::these are all in the high warp 9.xx ranges on the new scale, of course--Captain Mike K. Bartel Defiant's registry number It generally thought that the Defiant's registry number is NCC-1764, which I believe originated with D. C. Fontana's Concordance, but this has never been established in any episode or film (though it might soon be established in "In a Mirror, Darkly"). In a Mirror, Darkly CGI Constitution Class Would anyone like to mention under Background information that a CGI rendering of the Constitution was developed for In A Mirror Darkly, Parts I and II? Note to 84.131.36.60 and 84.131.47.115 Please refrain from re-editting the Interior Design and Background sections of the Constitution-class page! The image configuration is good as it is, and it is totally unnecessary to reconfigure the images to other locations making the page look cluttered. Also, I would suggest you both (if you are not one and the same person) register at Memory Alpha,, Ottens 16:52, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) :Actually Ottens, you are wrong about that, the version as it appears now displayes the text very wild compared to the version before. I had a look at the history of this page and you reverted a lot of improved image placements. Maybe you should check in some other browsers and resolutions -- Kobi - [[ :Kobi|( )]] 17:45, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) AARGH! What the hell is that!? That's no layout, that's a catastrophe! If I do something like these edits it has a good reason... --84.131.2.159 17:58, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) :I checked my edit in both Mozilla and in IE, and in both browsers it looked better than 84.131.2.159's version, so therefore I changed it back. Currently, MA seems to be having some troubles, so I'll have to check it again when MA is running fine again. :I would still like to urge 84.131.2.159 to at least register, since edits by unregistered users often turn out to be vandalism or something of the sort. An edit from a registered user at least shows the edit was done with good intention. Also, if you change back the edit of a registered user, the least thing you can do is leave a comment on the page's talk page explaining why you did so, pointing out my edit looked like hell when not using Mozilla ;) My apoligies for that. Ottens 19:20, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::Now that MA is up and running again, I checked my version in both IE and Firefox also, and I can't see anything wrong with it. It looks just fine using either three browsers (Mozilla, Firefox, IE).. :S Ottens 21:43, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::Hm. My Opera and IE still show it (your version), like on Kobi's screenshots. I think it's a problem with the resolutions. --84.131.20.236 22:45, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) Revert I reverted the extensive edit of Ottens as I felt it was, quite frankly, not quite as "up to snuff" as the previous version and was not formatted as well. For one thing, it was missing some info that was previously there (i.e., the technical info section). However, as I know it took Ottens a little while to rewrite all of this, I do not wish the edit to simply disappear into oblivion. So, I have placed the topic here for discussion to receive a second opinion (preferably from an admin) on the subject. Which should go and which should stay -- or can the two edits be merged in some way? --From Andoria with Love 12:51, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC) :Would you please point out specifically which topics in the Technical Data section that were previously there are not in my edit of the article? To my best knowledge, I included all information available, save for the "Atomsphere entry" subsection, the inclusion of which, IMO, is rather ridiculous. In theory, all Starfleet vessels should be capable of atmospheric entry, and with little more data than "This vessel could do that" on the subject, I decided it was not necessary to keep it. :On the formatting issue: in my opinion, my version was better formatted than the previous, not featuring thumbnails seemingly randomly located to both the left and right sides of the texts all throughout the article. Also, the images were thumbed rather large on the previous version, making the article harder to read, especially on smaller screens (there are still people using 800x600). Besides, the previous version also had some parts of blank page, in order to match the size of the images with the texts. Ottens 21:29, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC) ::I'll revert it back to your version, but I'd still like this to stay up here so it can be more thorougly discussed. --From Andoria with Love 23:30, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC) :But please point out what parts of the previous version were not included in my edit? Ottens 09:22, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC) ::I was incorrect about the missing info, and I apologize about that and for the revert. Truth be told, I think I was tired when I did it. Also, after reading the complete article, I think I like your version better. That said, great job! :-) --From Andoria with Love 10:36, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC) :That's good to hear :-) Thanks! Ottens 11:05, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC) Jefferies tubes It would be nice to see a picture of the access walkway shown in "In a Mirror, Darkly".--StAkAr Karnak 13:10, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC) :It would be even nicer to have some information on it, before adding an image. ;-) Ottens 13:24, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC) :Besides, there's an image of a "jefferies tube junction" here, but no image of the actual jefferies tube on the Constitution yet. Ottens 13:25, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC) Edit conflict :I left the following message at User talk:84.131.28.183 earlier today. It is directed at the person who keeps reverting my edit of the Constitution class page. I would like to strongly urge this person to register at MA, so he or she would have noticed this message at his/her talk page. Ottens 21:05, 1 Sep 2005 (UTC) Hi, and welcome to Memory Alpha! I reverted your edit to the image configuration of the ''Constitution'' class page, for the following reasons. In my opinion, the content of an article is more important than the images accompanying it. Images serve only to make the information more clear by illustrating it, but should never be the main focuss of an article. Therefore, I tend to keep images small, at least never larger than the standard thumb size (180px width). On the Constitution class page, I used lots of small images, because many images were available, and, IMO, should be used on that page. Using large thumbs gives some problems: * First of all, on people using small screens (800*600), images will take up most of the width of the screen; * Images become the main focuss of an article, rather than the text; * And images become shattered throughout the article, appearing on both the left and rigth sides of the text, decreasing readability. In my edit, most images are located on the right side of the article. Only by necessity, a few images are also thumbed to the left side. Of course, this creates a row of thumbs on the right side of the article, which may not appear very "cool", but it certainly does make the text easier to read -- and that's what the article of course is about. Ottens 21:04, 1 Sep 2005 (UTC) Why i'll revert again: *your rearrangement didn't regard "IE glitching" and screwed the proven design of the page up (also not regarding problems with other browsers) *it may work at 800px, but at res. higher than 1200px your captions become bigger than the pics themselves! Even if there is a minority using res. lower than 1000px we have to optimize for minimum 1000px, and that's why the thumb style automatically uses 180px. Maybe 200px ist too much for two pics at the same altitude, but 180 works (res 1000px). There's also no problem with readability with this version, but yours didn't connected the pics correctly to "their" text (esp. engineering and tactical). User:84.131.28.183 First of all, stop reverting over and over again while this matter is still not resolved. It's very unappropriate. Onto the issue itself: I checked my version in both Mozilla and IE, and the article looks good in both versions. The "IE glitching" you refer to does not appear on my version of the Constitution class page. Contrary to your claim, all images do appear along the text they're about. I checked regarding your claim of the "engineering and tactical" images, and they -- in both Mozilla and IE -- appear along the text they're supposed to be about. What's more, your version includes two images that have been nominated for deletion -- nominated for good reasons. Finally, in your version, text and images appear almost randomly displaced over the entire page. In my version, paragraphs are either the entire width of the page, or are shortened in width by image(s) next to it. On your version, it's not uncommon for a paragraph to be partly shortened in width, and then have one sentence over the entire width of the image, because you uncarefully put an image somewhere. In conclusion, I would also like to ask you, quite bluntly: what's your problem? I created the Constitution class page, and extensively editted over the past week, and quite frankly, I think I did a pretty good job. Your only action at MA seems to be reverting my edits of the Constitution class page. Because you're un unregistered user, I'm assuming all four IP-adresses are really one and the same person? (Please do register! It makes things a lot easier for the both of us. At least then I'm sure edits are no sign of vandalism, which edits by unregistered users usually are.) So why are you so edgy about this page? Ottens 09:54, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC) Well, then with illustration: :Removed for deletion, problems fixed. --Test 16:22, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC) As I wrote, we have to optimize for 1000px minimum, that's what I did. The image that should replace this one doesn't show the whole bridge and it's TOS illumination, so it's unappropriate. And this is simply non-canon because the model has been modified later.--Test 18:36, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC) I'm afraid I agree with User:Ottens, I don't see the problem with the article. If the pictures are slightly out of alignment, whats the problem with that? I'm using 1024x786, and it looks fine to me! Also, its a bit odd changing a featured article to such an extent, especially if you're not even registered... just my opinion. :) zsingaya 19:31, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC) I can see the IE thing too, the current version is better. And everyone can change an article, that has nothing to do with registration... --Porthos 20:29, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC) :User "Test". Here are print screens of how the page appears on my computer, using IE. It looks exactly the same when using Mozilla. Image 1 of my version in IE. Another image of my version in IE. :As you can see, the images all appear nicely next to the texts they're about. There's no IE-"glitching", which probably means this is a problem on your behalf? :What's more, some things look rather uncarefully edited on your version. Print screen 1 and 2 of untidy editting on your behalf. :You say in your comment that the bridge image thumbs are "definately too small". May I ask why? Why is large size required for thumbnails. The idea of a thumb is that it's a small version of a large image, and that in order to see the detail, you click on the image. :In response to Porthos: non-registered users can make edits, yes, but I was/am rather in doubt about this person's edit, considering he/she has never made edits to MA in the past, prior to making an extensive edit to a page that looked perfectly good to me. Ottens 22:18, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC) ::You're missing his point: I've just checked it with 800x600 and it works in your version but if you're trying higher resolutions around 1280x1024 you'll see it's not working because the font is far smaller in relation to the images, and the images appear smaller too so that they become a bit undersized. If you look at intrepid class or galaxy class you'll see that there are no images smaller than 180px - for good reasons. I don't consider 1 and 2 as major problems. Concerning "IE glitching" you can ask Tough Little Ship, Tim Thomason, Memory or THOR, they encountered it as well (elsewhere).--Porthos 23:31, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC) :::Regarding the IE-"glitching": the fact that it doesn't appear when I check the page in IE makes me think this is a problem on your behalf, rather than a general problem when using Internet Explorer. :::Regarding the resolution matter: I checked using different resolutions, and "Test"'s version only looks good when using 1280*1024. On smaller resolutions, it looks rather untidy, unclean. Using 800*600, it's a disaster. I guess we'll have to decide for what resolution we optimize this page. Very few people use 1280*1024; very few people use 800*600. 1024*768 is the standard screen resolution these days. In my opinion, websites should be optimized for that. If we optimize the page for higher resolutions because you happen to prefer that means it looks amateuristic. Ottens 10:25, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC) :::One more thing I forgot: pages such as the Intrepid class and Galaxy class do not have this problem. Why? Because the Constitution class page has twice the ammount of images as all other starship class pages, because we're dealing with two versions of the same ship here. Ottens 10:27, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC) ::::I tested my version with 1024*768 and it looks good too. But it also looks good with higher res - that's the advantage... (what is the "800*600 disaster"?) --Test 10:59, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC) :::Check your version in 800*600. With 180px thumbs on both the left and right sides, there sometimes is virtually no space left for text at all. :::Your version is acceptable in both 1024*768 and higher. My versions looks better than yours in 1024*768 (or at least, in my opinion), but looks equally horrible in higher resolutions as yours in 800*600. Ottens 11:40, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC) ::::There are many pages around that look odd at 800x600 and statistics say that there are more internet users with higher resolutions than 1024x768 as with 800x600. It makes just no sense to take much care of this minority and it means less work for all if we are oriented towards future standards than outdated ones. --Porthos 16:49, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC) :::If we don't have to consider the minority, then the page should be optimized for 1024*768, since the majority of the internet users uses that resolution. As you understand, this cannot be the resolution. Preferable would be a version of this page that looks acceptable in all screen resolutions. Ottens 19:10, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC) ::::Uhm, optimizing for 800*600 and 1600*1200?! I'm afraid that's simply impossible... --Test 19:40, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC) :In response to "Test"'s comment on the bridge image: we do not need two images that show practically the same thing. We need only one image of a Constitution class bridge, though usage may be found for the TOS bridge image elsewhere. Not both images are required on this page. Concerning the model image: it would of course be preferably if an image from the same angle could be screencapped from one of the features. As of now, it's the best complete aft view of the Constitution class starship. I sympathize with keeping the more zoomed-in image of the impulse drive systems, though, as it also shows the aft officers' lounge windows in more detail, besides the impulse engines themselves. I think both images should be on the Constitution class page. Ottens 22:21, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)